On 10/06/2011 Wendy wrote:>Actually, i did, right at the start. Where i pointed out that firewood>collection in the park was banned. Had been for ages. And that fires were>restricted to fire pits. And may to november. Given that all three of>these fire regulations are being breached, the logical consequence is that>fire priviledges will be revoked. In what way does that not make sense?

Wendy, those are _your_ points (and agenda?). It's not about what you said, it's about the recommendation. If you look at the recommendation it _doesn't_ say
- people have been collecting firewood
- people have been lighting fires out of season
- people have been lighting fires outside of fire pits
- people have painstakingly been placing poo into poo piles.

What it _does_ say is that there's a very strong possibility that firewood gathering has an impact on biodiversity. Therefore, we're going to ban fires more.

> Imagine you give your child a toy bat. You explain to them that it's not>ok to beat their little sister with the bat. They use the toy to beat up>their little sister. You take away the toy because they can't use it responsibly.>

That's not an appropriate analogy, based on the words of the recommendation. Imagine you saw on TV that there's a strong correlation between people beating up other people with bats, and bat ownership. So, out of concern of family bat-related violence, you take away your kid's cricket bat. That'd be closer to what's happening here.

On 10/06/2011 Doug Bruce wrote:>>In what way is it not fair? It is a priviledge to have a campfire. In>>most of southwest tassie, it's a fuel stove only area. Araps could always>>have been declared that too.

Baloney. Right now there's a park's regulation, referred to by a piece of state legislation, that says we can light fires for certain months of the year. It's not discretionary, or something that rangers turn a blind eye to. That makes it a right, not a privilege. Here's a link to the park regulations (see the section labelled 'FIRES') - http://www.parkweb.vic.gov.au/education/pdf/Park_regulations.pdf .

Hey you know what really _is_ a privilege? Bolting. It's damaging or defacing a rock. Look at regulation (f) on page 1. Technically it's against the law. Of course rangers turn a blind eye to it (most of the time).

>it. Life just isn't "fair". Get over it.

Whatever. So your saying that if something unfair happens, you should just accept it?

>Year after>year we used to luxuriate in rocking up to Whitewater Wall in Freycinet>National Park for the weekend, set up camp and light a fire. That, combined>with the cliff-top camping, was giving the area a real beating.

Right now there's a park's regulation, referred to by a piece>of state legislation, that says we can light fires for certain months of>the year. It's not discretionary, or something that rangers turn a blind>eye to. That makes it a right, not a privilege. Here's a link to the>park regulations (see the section labelled 'FIRES') - http://www.parkweb.vic.gov.au/educat>on/pdf/Park_regulations.pdf .
Thanks for the link. Did you not read the document carefully? This quote in the introduction: " there may be local variations for aspects such as dogs and fires. If you are unsure, check with the local park office or ask a ranger - they’ll be happy to help" makes it very clear that things can change from time to time, depending on what local rangers deem appropriate for a particular park.

>>Hey you know what really _is_ a privilege? Bolting.
Yep, couldn't agree more. It's right up there with lighting fires. So far though, Parks seem to think that climbers are sorting this out reasonably well amongst themselves, unlike what is happening with wood fuelled fires.>>>it. Life just isn't "fair". Get over it.>>Whatever. So your saying that if something unfair happens, you should>just accept it?
Nope. It's just that we don't all have the same view of what's fair and what's not, therefore life's not fair. For example, I think the extension of fire restrictions is a reasonable - thereby fair - and logical outcome of what has been happening with fires at Mount Arapiles and you don't. And it doesn't look like we are going to agree anytime soon.>>>Year after>>year we used to luxuriate in rocking up to Whitewater Wall in Freycinet>>National Park for the weekend, set up camp and light a fire. That, combined>>with the cliff-top camping, was giving the area a real beating.>>Good for you guys. Sounds like you really screwed the place up!!
Yep, you're right. And I'm sorry for it, but thankful that we turned things around and the area has come back so well (e.g. amongst other things, we get to see spotted-tail quolls in the camping area!) thanks to the change in both the fires policy and of the attitudes of those visiting the park of what is appropriate and what isn't. Occasionally we get people visiting the area who aren't au fait with the history of the place, want to light a fire and need to have the background and status quo explained. Generally now that is enough. Hopefully that is what will happen at Arapiles too.

On 10/06/2011 Doug Bruce wrote: >Thanks for the link. Did you not read the document carefully? This quote>in the introduction: " there may be local variations for aspects such as>dogs and fires. If you are unsure, check with the local park office or>ask a ranger - they’ll be happy to help" makes it very clear that things>can change from time to time, depending on what local rangers deem appropriate>for a particular park.

I don't see your point. For Arapiles, there are certain dates where you have the _right_ to light a fire. During this time, a ranger can't arbitrarily tell you to put out the fire. It's a pretty big deal to change these dates. There's a recommendation being put up to do just that. Isn't that what this entire thread is about??

>For example, I think the extension>of fire restrictions is a reasonable - thereby fair - and logical outcome>of what has been happening with fires at Mount Arapiles

OK, so what do you reckon has been happening with fires at araps? I'm there often, and I really don't see what the big problem is. Don't subscribe to the poo-piling, bonfire building scaremongering. Most people are responsible, and climbers care about the environment.

Does the recommendation incriminate campers and fire makers? No, it doesn't say that anyone is doing anything wrong! What it does suggest is that people who make fires might collect wood, and that wood collection probably affects biodiversity. Conclusion - get rid of fires!

This is well meaning, but it isn't logical because there are other factors that affect biodiversity in the park. To put it another way, there's no proof that people are collecting wood to an extent that it has any significant impact whatsoever on biodiversity. And there's no proof that reducing the time we're allowed to have fires will usefully reduce the amount of wood collected - if any wood is actually collected, I'm sure most of it is collected during the coldest months anyway. We're still allowed to have fires then!!

On 11/06/2011 jezza wrote:>>I don't see your point. For Arapiles, there are certain dates where you>have the _right_ to light a fire. During this time, a ranger can't arbitrarily>tell you to put out the fire. It's a pretty big deal to change these dates.> There's a recommendation being put up to do just that. Isn't that what>this entire thread is about??

Oh my god, I'm going to have to tell Amnesty international about the new traversty against our rights going on. Just because something is permitted does not make it a right. I don't see any rights charters anywhere refering to campfires. Perhaps you should argue that it violates your rights not to use your stove on days of total fire ban. Or not to be able to hunt possum. Go argue for your right to bear hammers.

>>>For example, I think the extension>>of fire restrictions is a reasonable - thereby fair - and logical outcome>>of what has been happening with fires at Mount Arapiles >>OK, so what do you reckon has been happening with fires at araps? I'm>there often, and I really don't see what the big problem is. Don't subscribe>to the poo-piling, bonfire building scaremongering. Most people are responsible,>and climbers care about the environment.

Maybe we have different standards, but access issues and the small groups of dedicated volunteers cleaning up and maintaining our crags (around the world even) might just suggest otherwise.>>Does the recommendation incriminate campers and fire makers? No, it doesn't>say that anyone is doing anything wrong! What it does suggest is that>people who make fires might collect wood, and that wood collection probably>affects biodiversity. Conclusion - get rid of fires!>>This is well meaning, but it isn't logical because there are other factors>that affect biodiversity in the park. To put it another way, there's no>proof that people are collecting wood to an extent that it has any significant>impact whatsoever on biodiversity. And there's no proof that reducing>the time we're allowed to have fires will usefully reduce the amount of>wood collected - if any wood is actually collected, I'm sure most of it>is collected during the coldest months anyway. We're still allowed to>have fires then!!>

FOR FûCK SAKE JEREMY! Have you read the entire reccomendation? Have you attend the committee meetings? Have you spoken with the rangers and other professionals involved? Do you really think that this has just randomly been pulled out of someone's arse to piss off climbers? When you are fully aware of the details of the case you are raving against, you can rant directly against their arguments and preferably present evidence (real evidence, not debatable assertations on Chockstone) that >"there's no>proof that people are collecting wood to an extent that it has any significant>impact whatsoever on biodiversity. And there's no proof that reducing>the time we're allowed to have fires will usefully reduce the amount of>wood collected"

Yep, we read that. Did you read my responses to them? In what ways are these particularly more direct than reducing campfire times anyway? By the arguments of assorted people so far, the people who are collecting wood in the park are breaking rules anyway and thus hardly likely to follow more rules. What makes them any more likely to pay attention to more signage or choosing to buy wood then to observe an increase fire ban period? And how the fûck is PV ever going to police firewood collection? When we have the rangers the Yosemite Valley has, maybe they could wander the camp ground and environs (with a shot gun over their shoulder) handing out fines for collecting wood. You have to come up with practicable solutions as well. Selling wood and increased ranger presence are not going to happen.

Whilst everyone is jumping up and down about increasing regulation, why wouldn't they be jumping up and down at increased ranger presence and fines anyway? All I am saying is self regulation is better - is it that hard to read signs and pre buy firewood? You can get it in Horsham if not Nati. This is just another wake up call about what could happen if self regulation is seen to fail. Contrary to apparenty opinions, I'm not arguing for a nanny state. I'm arguing for how to avoid it. You are offering solutions where someone else does something about the problem. I am suggesting that we, that is all of us, have to do something about the problem.

I saw two people today removing native vegitation at Araplies State Park. One of them was on "Uncle Charlies Right Nostril" and the other was on "Pearls Before Swine" I watched both of those people desicrating the biodiversity of the hand holds in that area.

I tried contact Parks about this travisty, but as yet Parks have not returned my calls.

Wendy, didn't you say that the mount is looking better now than any time since the first time you came here in 1890? So why do you say the rules/people's efforts aren't working? Sounds and looks to me like they are.

So a bunch of naughty people ignore or are unaware of the rules - BIG FUCHING DEAL as on the whole the rules are working. And that is something when you consider how many more people are camping there now.

Finally, now this important campaign has come to a successful close - a suggestion for the next committee meeting is to start a petition for a total BAN ON POOING AT THE PILES. Perfect topic for a bunch of do gooders whose shit don't stink.

On 3/06/2011 superstu wrote:>There is a huge amount of wood being collected from the summit road and the road to the northern group and loaded onto roofracks, carboots and ute trays and brought to the campground.

Today I drove to the summit of Arapiles and also walked through the bush surrounding the campsite. The amount of dead wood lying on the ground all the way along the summit road is phenomenal. And the amount of dead wood lying on the ground within a stones throw of camp is also pretty amazing. It is obvious that the amount of wood being collected within the Park is miniscule and the amount of dead wood lying around close to camp has increased significantly in the last 25 years.

There are a few small firepits in the campsite, but I am at a loss to see how they have any impact on the area. They don't seem out of place at all. After at least half-an-hour walking around I finally came across a couple of pieces of loo paper in the bush (but no poo pile). And this was on the final day of one of the busiest weekends of the year.

Arapiles is looking fantastic. And I am gutted that certain climbers are pushing for this ban and pushing for further regulation when there isn't any problem in the first place.

Wow, come out after a week in the desert to see this.
First point that comes to mind is that the AAC doesn't make rules, it can only make recommendations. If people don't like it, make your own submission to Parks. It would be useful to include some facts in it.
Other point, I support the fire restrictions and am amazed at the childish overreactions here.
I don't use campfires in parks anymore. Just spent a week on the Anne Beadell, bloody cold at nights, stacks of wood, lit no fires.

On 13/06/2011 Kieranl wrote:>...make your own submission to Parks. It would be useful to include some facts in it.
I will be including facts.

>Other point, I support the fire restrictions and am amazed at the childish overreactions here.
There is nothing childish about wishing to protect against over regulation and excessive bans for Arapiles when the park is looking better than ever.

>I don't use campfires in parks anymore.
The fact that folk such as yourself aren't in favour of campfires is not a particularly good reason for banning fires. All the evidence shows that Arapiles is not suffering in any way from the current policy.

>Just spent a week on the Anne Beadell, bloody cold at nights, stacks of wood, lit no fires.
No one is forcing you to have a fire at Arapiles either.

Anyone got an ideas on how to get through to people like the trail bike guys that pulled out Sunday morning with their fire still burning? They were also camped next to the bins and I'm pretty sure it was their group riding their bikes down the closed road too.

I would suggest that the reason the area around the camp is looking good is at least partly due to the controls on camping and fires.
Dead wood is habitat, not a resource for campers to mine. I am just surprised that few people seem to accept this.

On 14/06/2011 ajfclark wrote:>Anyone got an ideas on how to get through to people like the trail bike>guys that pulled out Sunday morning with their fire still burning? They>were also camped next to the bins and I'm pretty sure it was their group>riding their bikes down the closed road too.

Just back from several days at Araps. I must have been there 50 times now, but I'm still amazed how beautiful it is there, and at the quality of the rock.

STATE OF THE NORTH CAMPGROUND
This campground doesn't get as busy as the Pines, so maybe you'd expect it to be cleaner - but then again, maybe it doesn't get cleaned as often?

Anyway, I was amazed at how clean it was. I'm not just saying that - when everyone had left on Monday night, the place was bloody spotless. I found some rubbish in some of the bushes, but I had to hunt for it, and it had obviously been there for quite some time. Honestly, I'd give a pat on the back to all the climbers who used that campground. I saw about twenty tents there on the weekend, maybe more.

There's dead wood and dry bark all over the place in the North Campground. If we have a dry summer, some of it may have to be cleared, because it's a fire hazard. That'd be kind of ironic.

Unfortunately, though it's tidy, the North Campground looks pretty awful. The rains of summer & autumn came rushing down the hill, cleared out large areas, completely gutted the tracks, and generally wreaked havoc. Not much planning seems to have been done to manage run-off in this area. I would volunteer time to build a run-off channel to redirect water into the neighbouring paddock.

JEZZA'S HUNT FOR POO PILES
I hunted for poo piles, but couldn't find any. Maybe the rains have washed them all away. In my desperation, I talked to someone who had, many years ago, been a full-time resident. He was able to point me in the direction of an ancient poo pile in the SW corner of the North Campground!!

It's said to be more than 5 years old, and there's no longer any evidence of poo. But there's a medium sized tomato plant, that must have grown from seeds in the poo itself -apparently the tomatoes are flavoursome.

I was kind of disappointed. I believed Wendy, and I'd expected to find a few poo piles in the North Campground (which is further from toilets than any of the campgrounds). Maybe there's some near the Pines, because there's more poo producers there. I didn't have time to look, but there's always next time.

On 13/06/2011 Kieranl wrote:>Other point, I support the fire restrictions and am amazed at the childish>overreactions here.
I think the most childish overreactions are from the people who want fire restrictions. Look at all the exaggeration about the dreadful state of the campsites and the park. If you don't like fires, that's fine. Please don't use biodiversity, looking after the environment, to push your agenda, unless you can show that the current rules are having a negative effect on the park.